Cancelling a GST registration and then serving every notice and order only on the portal — which the taxpayer can no longer access strikes at the heart of natural justice and the rule that no one should be condemned unheard. Though Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 permits service via the common portal, the courts have repeatedly held that once registration is cancelled, a taxpayer can no longer be expected to keep monitoring it. Where the department fails to serve through an alternative mode, the right to be heard stands violated.
The Officer’s Duty Does Not End with Uploading the Notice
A second and equally significant principle places a corresponding obligation on the assessing officer. Where a notice is served through one prescribed mode and elicits no response, the officer is expected to act with due diligence and attempt service through an alternative mode under Section 169 before proceeding further. The passing of an ex parte order, without making any genuine effort to ensure that the notice has effectively reached the taxpayer, falls short of the standard of fairness that the statute and the principles of natural justice demand.
Key Judgments in this regard:
1. Deputy State Tax Officer vs. Chennai vs. Showkathhussain Mohamedismaile (2024) 18 Centax 61 (Mad.), the Madras High Court reiterated that once a petitioner’s registration was cancelled, it could not be expected that assessee should monitor GST portal in same manner as a registered person for receiving notices. The assessment order, issued after an SCN on the portal, was quashed, and the matter was remanded, subject to a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax demand.
2. Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes (2024) 24 Centax 103 (All.) the Allahabad High Court also firmly held that once registration cancelled, assessee not obligated to check GST portal. The Court emphasized that the SCN must be served through alternative means, and the impugned order was quashed for violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Deputy State Tax Officer-I vs. Health @ Home (2025) 31 Centax 195 (Mad.), the Madras High Court observed that when a taxpayer’s GST registration was cancelled, they had no occasion to view the GST portal. The Court explicitly stated that when there is no response from taxpayer to notice sent through a particular mode, Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of CGST/TNGST Act, preferably by way of RPAD.
The judicial trend is unmistakable: cancelling a GST registration and then serving notices and orders solely through the portal, without ensuring the taxpayer’s awareness, is increasingly held to be invalid and contrary to natural justice.
Author Bio
